When Marxists speak of the adventurism of certain groups, they have in mind quite definite socio-historical peculiarities of such a phenomenon with which every conscious worker must be familiar.

The history of Russian Social-Democracy is teeming with groups that arose "for an hour," for a few months, having no roots whatsoever among the masses (and politics without masses is adventurist politics), having no serious and durable ideas. In a petty-bourgeois country, in the historical period of bourgeois transformations, the joining of the workers by motley intellectuals is inevitable, as are attempts by them to found all sorts of groups – adventurist in the sense indicated.

Workers who do not wish to be led by the nose must strictly examine every group both from the standpoint of the seriousness of its ideas and from the standpoint of its roots among the masses. Not to believe on word, to check with utmost rigor – that is the slogan of Marxist workers.

Let us recall the struggle between "Iskraism" and "Economism," 1895–1902. These were two currents of Social-Democratic thought, one – proletarian and Marxist, tested by the three-year campaign of *Iskra*, tested by all advanced workers, who recognized as their own the precise, clear, well-formulated resolutions on "Iskraist" tactics and organization. "Economism" was a bourgeois, opportunist current, subordinating workers to the liberals.

Besides these two serious currents, there was a mass of rootless groups ("Svoboda," "Borba"{95}, the group of Berlin sheets, etc.), which have long been forgotten. In these groups there were not a few honest and conscientious Social-Democrats, but they proved to be adventurist in the sense that they had neither durable, serious ideas, a program, tactics, organization, nor roots among the masses.

So, and only so, studying history, reflecting on the ideological significance of a definite preaching, checking phrases against facts, should serious people approach the evaluation of present-day currents and groups.

Only fools believe on word.

"Pravdism" is a current that has given precise Marxist answers, resolutions (1908, 1910, 1912, 1913 – February and summer) on all questions of tactics, organization, and program. The continuity of these resolutions since the days of the old *Iskra* (1901–1903) has been maintained with the utmost rigor, not to mention the London Congress (1907). The correctness of these resolutions has been tested by the 5–6-year experience (1908–1914) of all advanced workers, who have recognized these resolutions as their own. "Pravdism" actually united 4/5 of the conscious workers of Russia (5,300 groups of Social-Democratic workers out of 6,700 in 2½ years).

Liquidationism is a current. It has an almost 20-year history, for it is the direct continuation of "Economism" (1895–1902) and the offspring of Menshevism (1903–1908). The liberal-bourgeois roots and liberal-bourgeois content of this current are acknowledged by the resolutions (1908 and 1910; no wonder the liquidators are afraid to publish them in full!!). The liberal ideas of the liquidators are linked and coherent: down with the underground, down with whales, for an open party, against "strike fervor," against higher forms of struggle, etc. Support for the liquidators from the liberal-bourgeois "society" and from the Kadets and from the non-party (and semi-party) intelligentsia is of long standing and solid. Liquidationism is serious, only not Marxist, not proletarian, but a liberal-bourgeois current. Only people without brains can speak of "peace" with the liquidators.

Now take all the remaining groups that likewise wish to be "currents." Let us enumerate them: 1) the Forwardists with Aleksinsky; 2) the same with Bogdanov; 3) the same with Voinov; 4) the Plekhanovists; 5) "Bolsheviks-partyists" (in fact reconcilers: Mark Sommer with his household); 6) the Trotskyists (i.e., Trotsky, even without Semkovsky); 7) the "Caucasians" (i.e., An – without the Caucasus).

We have enumerated those groups about which there appeared in print; both in Russia and abroad it has been announced that they wish to be separate "currents" and groups. We have tried to enumerate all Russian groups, leaving aside non-Russian ones.

All these groups, without a single exception, are one continuous adventurism.

Why? Where is the proof? – the reader will ask.

The proof is the history of the last decade (1904–1914), the richest in events and the most significant. The activists of all the named groups have revealed over these 10 years the most helpless, the most pitiful, the most ridiculous vacillations on serious questions of tactics and organization, have revealed a complete inability to create currents that have roots among the masses.

Take the best of them all, Plekhanov. His personal services in the past are enormous. For 20 years, 1883–1903, he produced a mass of excellent works, especially against opportunists, Machists, and Populists.

But from 1903 onward, on questions of tactics and organization, Plekhanov vacillates in the most absurd manner: 1) August 1903 – a Bolshevik; 2) November 1903 (No. 52 of *Iskra*) – for peace with the "opportunist" Mensheviks; 3) December 1903 – a Menshevik and a fierce one; 4) Spring 1905, after the Bolshevik victory, – for "unity" of "warring brothers"; 5) 1905, from the end until mid-1906 – a Menshevik; 6) mid-1906 – begins sometimes to depart from the Mensheviks and in London, 1907, censures them (according to Cherevarin) for "organizational anarchism"; 7) 1908 – a break with the liquidators; 8) 1914 – a new turn toward the liquidators. Plekhanov preaches "unity" with them, unable to utter two clear words about what then are the conditions of unity? Why has it become possible with Mr. Potresov? Where are the guarantees of the fulfillment of one or another condition?

After the experience of such a decade, we vouch that Plekhanov is capable of producing spray, but there is no "current" here and there will not be.

We fully understand the Pravdists, who readily published Plekhanov's articles against the liquidators: could the Pravdists have rejected articles that thoroughly carried out the resolutions of 1908 and 1910 against the liquidators? Plekhanov has now begun to repeat after the liquidators, after Bogdanov, etc., phrases about the unity of "all currents." We resolutely condemn this procedure, which must be waged against without mercy.

Nowhere in the world do workers' parties unite intellectual groups and "currents," but rather unite workers on the condition of 1) recognition and implementation of definite Marxist resolutions on questions of tactics and organization; 2) the submission of the minority of conscious workers to the majority of them.

This unity, on the basis of unconditional renunciation by opponents of the underground, has been achieved by the Pravdists in 2½ years (1912–1914) among 4/5 of them. However much the Pravdists are reviled by empty people as factionalists, schismatics, etc., from these phrases and abuse the fact of workers' unity will not disappear…

Plekhanov now threatens to destroy this unity of the majority. We calmly and firmly declare to the workers: do not believe words, check them against facts, and you will see that each step of each of the above-named adventurist groups will increasingly expose their helpless and pitiful vacillations.

*Rabochiy* No. 7, June 9, 1914. Signature: V. Ilyich

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Rabochiy*